Television Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

{{editprotected}} Please change

[{{{website}}} Official website]

to

{{{website}}}

so that the URL is exposed to the reader, as with other major infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: That would lose the information that the URL is for the official website. An alternative would be the following approach:

|label44 = Official website
|data44  = {{{website|}}}

But making that change would require a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the URL should be exposed but would support MSGJ's approach above. Mhiji (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However I would prefer just Website rather than having the word official for simplicity and for consistency with other infoboxes. Mhiji (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some URLs are quite lenghty, so we cannot simply display it without breaking the infobox. Here's another suggestion:

[{{{website}}} <span title="{{{website}}}">Official website</span>]

This will explose the URL as a hint. — Edokter • Talk • 15:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Optionally, a website_title parameter could be added:

[{{{website}}} <span title="{{{website}}}">{{{website_title|Official}}} website</span>]

— Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented my changes, since there has been no objections. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not expose the URL on the page; nor include it in the emitted microformat. Please find a solution which does so, or make the change I requested. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover your mouse over the link; you will see the link. As for the microformat... you need to fill me in on that. — Edokter • Talk • 00:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I know what a tooltip is; my point stands. The microformat is explained in this template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Microformat fixed. But why does the URL need to be exposed in al is't ugliness? If it is too long, you get unwieldly formatting errors. — Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; you've not fixed the microformat - each now has a URL value like "Production website" or "Official website" rather than a valid URL. URLs are, in this context, data and we shouldn't be hiding data. Calling them "ugly" is a personal value judgement. If the infobox can't display them properly then it should be fixed; other infoboxes seem to manage. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What other infoboxes are you talking about? Remember that this template is first and formost for displaying visual information, machines come second. And on a side note, perhaps the links should be removed all together and moved the the External links section... just like all other major infoboxes? — Edokter • Talk • 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of major infoboxes display URLs visually. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please list some examples. There is no way I can help if I don't know what templates you're talking about. — Edokter • Talk • 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox building}}, {{Infobox musical artist}}, {{Infobox company}} - but I don't recall asking you to help me; I've explained what needs to be done, others have proposed minor (and acceptable to me) tweaks, and you and no-one else have objected to it, and made an inferior and flawed change. You've stated that this infobox can't handle it and - wrongly - that "all other major infoboxes" don't, either. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Yes, I am actually trying to help... I'm just trying to do it right. Your original proposal would not have caused the microformat to be emitted, because simply passing an URL does not trigger the microformat. Now that I have looked at the other templates, I see the the first three instruct to use {{URL}} to list the website (and which optionally hides the URL), but {{infobox company}} does not, so it doens't emit a microformat because {{URL}} is not mentioned in it's documentation). I can incorporate {{URL}} in the template in such a way that let the editors decide wether to expose the URL or not, while not interfering with the microformat. Would that be OK? — Edokter • Talk • 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt... But I'd object to that. (I hope I'm understanding what you're saying correctly - sorry if not...). I don't think we should give editors the option as to whether to expose the URL or not on a case by case basis. We should have consistency across all television articles (either to display the URL or not). It doesn't make sense to me to have some articles which do and some which don't, just based on the personal preference of the editor at the time. This could create unnecessary edit-warring too. But I agree incorporating {{URL}} into the template code would be great - this is far more user friendly as the editor then just has to enter the bare URL and nothing more (just as it is at the moment - nothing would need to be changed on article pages) and the microformat is added too. Mhiji (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, then I would have to take out website_title, because as I understand it, {{URL}} only exposes the "displayed" text as microformat, leaving a bare URL as the only option. What to do with production_website? We can't have two URL in microformat. — Edokter • Talk • 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not; and most of the statements which precede your question are false. I have never claimed that the proposed change would caused the microformat to be emitted. - it already is. {{infobox company}} emits a microformat, regardless of the use of {{URL}}. There is no need to incorporate {{URL}} in this template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

URL Microformat is only emitted when the URL is wrapped in an .url class, so now your statement is inacurate. Without {{URL}} or a manually added span class="url", there is no microformat. The documentation also states that. So I am still left with what to do with the website_title and the production_website. — Edokter • Talk — 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inaccurate in my statement. The microformat exists regardless of the presence of {{URL}} or a manually added span class="url". The documentation states nothing to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now incorporated {{URL}} into the template. According to all the documentation I have read with regard to microformats, this should guarantee that the URL is emitted. — Edokter • Talk — 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be against removing these from the infobox. Take The West Wing, the exposed URL is ridiculous. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know... I fixed that. I have no idea why it was exposed twice... perhaps too long? — Edokter • Talk — 22:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what the .....: Stargate SG-1 :(( Vilnisr ^{T | C} 09:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I warned Andy about. As a workaround, add website_title=(something) to the template to hide the link. — Edokter • Talk — 13:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is not practical. Microformat or no microformat, the old way was much better. Garion96 (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a URL was shown twice, that is nothing to do with its length; nothing to do with the microformat, and is not something you have ever warned about, it would seem to be due entirely to your error. I again refer you to the above list of highly-use infoboxes, all of which show a URL and include it in the emitted microformat with no such drama. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked again, and they all use {{URL}} (at least they instruct you to use it). Infobox itself has microformat support, but you must add the classes using the class parameters. In short: simply passing the url does NOT generate a microformat. I warned again misformed infobox display, and that is what happened. Anyway, since {{URL}} is now used, I don't see any more problems. The microformat is there; it is just not shown on-screen. — Edokter • Talk — 21:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)#[reply]

The fact that you don't perceive the problems (that you have caused) doesn't mean that they don't exist. While you persist in denying the problem, you're unlikely to stumble across a solution. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

better restore the old format Vilnisr ^{T | C} 14:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is an idea. How about if we do the following: (1) Create a new field which allows for passing of a formatted URL like, e.g. using the {{URL}} template, (2) Convert all the existing uses to a functionally equivalent version (by bot), then (3) deprecate the old parameter. Then, people can tweak the formating on a case-by-case basis. For example, if you check {{Infobox musical artist}}, it exposes the URL and calls it URL. I don't have a strong opinion on the parameter name, but it would seem that having flexibility there would be useful. What do you think? I could file a WP:BRFA if there is consensus that this is a viable path forward. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That might work, but seems an awful lot of effort compared to the requested change, which is in line with the workings of the major-use templates I gave as examples, above. I note that no substantive reason has been given, not to implement that change (with subsequently-proposed tweaks). Over-long URLs has been given as a hypothetical problem, but no evidence that this will actually cause issues has been cited, and it doesn't seem to affect the listed infoboxes. Commonality of function across templates is surely also better for the project? Furthermore, though your change didn't make a material difference, the template is currently emitting an invalid URL microformat value for every instance. In the short term, all the recent edits to URL parameters should be reverted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hypothetical when multiple articles were pointed out to be affected during that time. Two specific articles were mentioned at the time, The West Wing (pointed out by me) was messed up (till the URL was changed shortly afterwards), and Stargate SG-1 (pointed out by Vilnisr). But also Stargate Atlantis and Stargate Universe were entirely messed up with the inbox getting twice as wide as it's now due to the URL being long (stargate.mgm.com/view/series/1/index.html for SG-1). I would like to ask that all future edits to this URL format are tested out first in the sandbox before implemented, come up with the appropriate code, test it out in the sandbox and do an {{Edit protected}} request. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles were messed up because the change implemented was a broken one; not that proposed or discussed above; which are akin to those in the example templates given. You will need to ask the editor who made those changes why he did not sandbox his, different, changes. The problem with Stargate URL is, chiefly, the superflous "index.html" suffix. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, exposing the URL exposes the entire URL, which is what you want, the implementation was not broken. You have removed the index.html but that doesn't fix the issue, it's a mere patch for those articles. Exposing the URL as you want it causes problems, for which you have provided no answer. What is currently in place is still the best option, unless you can give a way to magically shrink long URL's. Not to mention that in some cases it just looks stupid, TV websites are usually subpages of the network, unlike the other templates you have given were normally they have no nothing after the .com. I think it's time to stop telling everyone that what they did was wrong or broken and instead come up with a functional answer yourself. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were reports if URLs displaying twice; if so the implementation was broken. My recent edits to remove index.html from URLs in the infoboxes on three SG articles were to remove the aforesaid redundancy; not fix anything else, since the template currently does not expose the URL and does emit bogus metadata. You have yet to identify any problems caused by the requested edit, or to say why those problems will occur here, but do not in the more widely-used infoboxes given as examples, above. Saying something "looks stupid", with out giving an example, much less a demonstration of such stupidity, is merely an unsupported personal opinion. Since my proposal has not yet been implemented, how can you say how it looks, in any case? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal was shot down by the first responder MSGJ, you have yet to come up with a solution to that. Long exposed URL will mess up the infobox, that is the case, period, there don't have to be examples, I cant even show you an example because the template works just fine now and does not mess up articles, which exposing the URL will cause, just use some common sense. Please actually try to help, you're bossing everyone around to do what you say, instead of coming up with a solution like other people here have tried. And yes "looks stupid" is my opinion, and my example was the Stargate articles, do I really have to add that after every sentence? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, MSGJ suggested a minor modification to the labelling, which I've already indicated more than once I'm happy with. Why would you want to present the facts as anything other than that? Sating "Long exposed URL will mess up the infobox, that is the case, period, there don't have to be examples…" carries no more weight than your last unsupported personal opinion. I'm not "bossing everyone around", and that's bordering on a personal attack. I've already provided a working solution with examples of other infoboxes which cope admirably. I've already refuted the example of the Stargate articles, which were broken by a change other than the one proposed here; and where the URLs used were needlessly bloated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Just for the sake of it, I've implemented what you appear to be wanting in the sandbox, now just go to Stargate Universe change {{Infobox television}} with {{Infobox television/sandbox}} and preview it, even with the /index.html removed it's still messed up. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not messed up at all here (albeit it would look better with the use of {{URL}}, which would suppress the http:// prefix); it looks just like such URLs do in the four high-use infoboxes cited above. Perhaps, if it's broken with your device & settings, you should post a screen-shot? Or at least define "messed up"? Incidentally, though it doesn't affect the rendering, what you've implemented isn't what I asked for. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire infobox is stretched out, creating about 10 pixels of white space on both sides and causing all the labels to wrap around. Using {{URL}} only messes it up more, creating stargate.mgm.com/view/series/3//view/series/3/. If that's not what was asked for by you and what MSGJ said, which you stated that you are happy with, then I give up on trying to understand what you're asking for, as I used the exact code provided by MSGJ. I can only suggest you more clearly state what you want, preferably just doing it in the sandbox. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{URL|stargate.mgm.com/view/series/3/}} (i.e. stargate.mgm.com/view/series/3/ ) renders as stargate.mgm.com/view/series/3/ (my emboldening, and obviously linked) and not what you have given. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the doc to say that |num_episodes= should be the number of episodes released? Currently it says it should be the number of episodes produced. This is in my experience the extreme exception, I've only seen once someone trying to add it with a source. The information of production ending is incredibly scarce, and for the one time I saw a source added, it talked about ending of filming not ending of production. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Since Template:Infobox has now been changed so that it allows italics, could someone change the code to reflect this please rather than using {{Italic title infobox}} (similar to how its been implemented at {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, {{Infobox newspaper}}, {{Infobox play}} etc etc.)? Mhiji (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To override header-italicisation, rather than "|italic title=no", apparently what's now required is "|italictitle=no". Can someone please tweak the documentation -- or better yet, have the template accept either? Over at Dennis Miller, I just had to go through one exercise to find out why it was being wrongly italicised, and then another to work out why the documented fix wasn't working.

I'd question whether it was any sort of good idea to do this in the first place. "False positives" in which non-TV show-names end up in header italics are, to my mind, much worse than "false negatives" in which TV shows end up in plain text. And are going to be harder to find and fix -- especially if no-one is actually looking for them. Smartiger (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this should have had been tested before it was massively rolled out. —Mike Allen 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the Wiki way! :/ Ideally, if someone wise to this issue were to check existing transclusions, that would be a lot more time-effective than having numerous non-template-savvy topical editors banging their heads on a case by case basis... Smartiger (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The doc's been updated. Mhiji (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add the parameters |based_on= and |co-executive_producers=, these are currently tacked on with |creator= and |executive_producer= and can make a mess of info in parentheses in the infobox. Some of the names were changed to omit the (s) at the end some time ago, I would like to see the remaining also removed: Composer(s) → Composed by, Producer(s) → Produced by, Editor(s) → Edited by, Location(s) → Filmed at or Produced at. And if someone can come up with some names without (s) for Creative director(s), Language(s), Executive producer(s), Production company(s). Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some proposed changes for {{Infobox television season}}, please see Template talk:Infobox television season#Template overhaul for the proposed template overhaul. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]